Skip to main content

About your Search

20121129
20121207
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6
thoughts on this convention. i -- it seems as if most of the 250eu78times when the u.n. treas come up, i have been opposed to them. my concern has always been that of sovereign at this moment so. i do oppose the crpd because i think does impinge upon our sovereignty, establishing an unelected united nations body called the committee on the rights of persons with disabilities in the conference of state parties. these unelected bureaucratic bodies would implement the treaty and pass so-called recommendations that would be -- that would be forced upon the united nations and the u.s. as if the u.s. senior senator a signatory. we already have the 190 act. we went through that a few years ago. i was here at that time. it is considered to be the gold standard for the disabled. we don't need the united nations bureaucrats changing it in our country in the name of worldwide application. while the obama administration afirst that no changes to -- affirms that no changes to the federal or state law will be necessary, if the crpd is ratified, the crpd can be amended. the senator from indiana talked
heard all this talk about, well, home schoolers, people -- home schooling their kids, that the u.n. was going to come in and take them away. nonshens --, nonsense, utter, sheer nonsense. and so what happened today was the triumph on the senate floor of fear. unfounded, unreasonable fear triumphed over experience, the experience we've had with the americans with disabilities act, reason, rational thought. unfounded fears that somehow, someplace, somebody's going to do something out of the u.n., they're going to come in and take over something. but we proved, proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that none of our laws had to be changed, this gave the u.n. no authority over our country or our laws or anything, and yet this unfounded fear took hold. to the point where people who were sponsors of the bill voted against it. sponsors of it now just turned around and voted against it. again, for what reason, unfounded fear. what message, what message did we send today to the rest of the world? a message that okay, we're pretty good, we did a lot of good stuff in terms of passing legislation
say that ratifying the convention would take decisions out of parents' hands and let the u.n. or the federal government decide what's best for our children and that's just wrong. the treaty doesn't give the federal government or any state government new powers. with regard to children with disabilities and the treaty cannot be used as a basis for a lawsuit in state or federal court. former attorney general dick thornburgh made this crystal clear in his testimony before the senate foreign relations committee and in every conversation i've had with him. i would support the treaty if -- i wouldn't support the treaty if it were any other way. let's take a step back and look how this looks if america jeects this treaty. china has joined, russia has joined. we are the country that set the standards on rights for the -- of the disabled. we want everybody to play by international rules. we lose credibility if we turn around and refuse to participate in a treaty that merely asks other nations to live up to our standards, our rules. i'd like to point out that we got a letter from the b
violation of a u.n. security council resolution, and we encourage the leadership in north korea to consider what they are doing here and implications in the overall security environment on the korean peninsula, as well as destination. >> anything new? we been hearing some rumblings for some time that there might be some activity on that front. anything new that you can provide in terms of insights into launches or things like that? >> well, i think you're tracking a pretty well. i think from the media today there are indications declared indications of their intention to do what they would call a peaceful satellite launch. and we believe it is in contradictory to the u.n. security council resolutions, that because of the nature of the type of missile they will be firing and the implications it has for ballistic missile type of activity somewhere down the road, and the destabilizing impact that will have on security incitement throughout the throughout the region, not just on the peninsula. >> can you follow up on some of -- was short assessment? they say they have solve whatever problems th
of mali, to our allies, and to our security. the u.n. security council is now considering what they call a concept of operations for an african-led military operation. the u.s. can and should play a more active role in supporting this and preventing the country from becoming a permanent home for extremists and a safe haven for terrorists. an active role, mr. president, does not mean putting american boots on the ground. instead, we can provide operational support for a regionally led, multilateral, african-led force being organized by eco was, the economic community of west african states, and the african union. in the weeks ahead, the u.n. security council will likely vote on a resolution authorizing this coalition to lead a military intervention to dislodge the terrorists in the northern. we've seen models like this wo work, in cote d'ivoire and somalia, so there's reason to believe in the potential of a regional military solution to the security crisis in the north. however, even if this intervention works, it will take time to train and equip and assemble the regional force and to de
of the president earlier to deploy it. the n.r.c. has, in fact, recommended that there be an interceptor site on the east coast of the united states as a possible substitute for this block 2u6r7b b -- 2-b. the administration has yet to provide a hedging strategy that the ndaa required. we've known of this deficiency, the fact that the g.b.i. system is not adequate, the fact that the sm system may never be deployed, we've asked for a hedging strategy. we don't have it even know the law has required it. this amendment begins to shine an even brighter light on the eastern i've had for a long time which is why the administration hasn't provided sufficient resources and attention to our missile defense efforts to protect the homeland of the united states. that's precisely what this would do. sure, it would help with regard to our friends in europe but the primary point of this is to protect the american people. what's wrong with that? some examples that lead to my concern. in his first budget the president reduced funding for the ground-based system, that's the ground-based mid course defense syst
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6